Hollywood, I think I’m finally going to say I am done with you. Of all the people in this world who are trying to make it as screenwriters, you constantly choose people to rehash a subpar version of a popular film only a decade old. There are people who write unique and original ideas, why not use them? Why just give up and throw remakes at us?

I’m getting pretty tired of going to the movie theater or watching television and seeing trailers to movies that have already been made in the past. For instance, the current remake of “Total Recall” is about to hit screens. Not even going to bother changing the name even in the slightest? Wow.

I think I’ve been being pushed to the edge with Hollywood these past couple years, but the final straw has been drawn. I understand that Sylvester Stallone is not the best actor in the world, and “Judge Dredd” is by no means an Oscar winning film. It’s a poor example of a Sci-Fi action movie; however, it represents the typical 90’s Sci-Fi action film. It does not need to be remade into “Dredd.” At least they changed the name slightly. I get it – the original can be vastly improved upon but why would you want to?

From the previews they have completely changed the storyline; alright I can live with that. And if they wanted to keep the same universe and use different characters I’d be fine with that too. Yet, they use the same characters and even the same tagline as the original. That’s just being lazy. If you had just changed some names around you would have had more of an original idea, but Hollywood just had to keep the same ‘ole Judge Dredd. Typical.

While remaking “Judge Dredd” hit my nerve pretty hard, I look back in past years and see many remakes that just have me shaking my head wondering “why do they do this to themselves?”

It seemed to start primarily in horror films. A few years back, a new “Friday the 13th” was released. However, this movie was more like another installment to the franchise (that like its character Jason just wouldn’t die) and did not come across as a remake. It was the same killer but new victims with better story lines. It was very well done. However, when you get “The Thing,” that poor movie has a remake of the remake! Sometimes, Hollywood just needs to accept that it’s time to end it and move on to butcher another movie.

Then there were remakes of “Fright Night” and “Nightmare on Elm Street.” As an avid fan of Robert Englund I feel as though they should have kept him in the role of Freddy Kruger as he terrorized Elm Street because that it his iconic role. But what do I know? And “Fright Night,” was not a more popular horror film in the 80’s so I can see why there could be a remake in that film. I’m not condoning it, but I can see that since it wasn’t wildly popular people would be less inclined to know it was a remake.

Now remakes are becoming more prominent in other genres. As a fan of 1984’s “Footloose” starring Kevin Bacon, I was appalled to learn that it was being remade recently. I still think the original soundtrack is one of the best I’ve ever heard in any film. (I still have it playing in my car.) I still can’t even get through the new rendition of “Footloose” by Blake Shelton.

One current remake that I can fully understand why it has been done: “The Amazing Spiderman.” While the original Spiderman trilogy is not that old, one major event happened shortly after they were made: Disney bought Marvel from Universal. The past three Spidey flicks were made by Universal Studios, and the new one is being made by Disney. Perhaps the new film is a way to show up Universal, just like “The Avengers”? It makes sense that Disney wants to remake “Spiderman” because this would be their first time presenting the superhero to the public. That remake makes sense because the character has switched hands. Remakes of movies that are 25-30 years old seem unnecessary to me.

I know fans of these remakes will challenge my views on the recent batch of Hollywood “cinema,” and I am gladly open to feedback. All I ask is for Hollywood to straighten itself out and give us original movies again. Is that really too much to ask? They would rather play it safe and repackage a movie they know people will see instead of growing a pair and doing something that requires guts. Please, just take that leap of faith with these screenwriters with original ideas.

Jessica Brown is the staff photographer for the Barrow Journal. You can reach her at jessica@barrowjournal.com.

Never mind seeing the film, about sixty seconds of internet research would have revealed that it's A, not a Hollywood movie at all but an independent production, and B, not actually a remake of the 1995 film but a separate new adaptation of the popular long-running Judge Dredd comics. (Which the '95 film didn't so much "adapt" as trash so thoroughly that fans have been hoping for a proper Dredd movie that would do the source material justice ever since.)

This might come as a shock to you, but "Hollywood" doesn't exist anymore. Not in the sense that it's a little municipality in southern California where the motion picture studios are gathered. In fact, the studios don't exist anymore, except as brand names that distribute product. Paramount, Warner Bros., Universal et al. have all followed, more or less the United Artists model which came to real fruition in the 1950s, i.e., they finance and distribute but don't actually produce movies.

You are aware Dredd is an adaptation of a British comic, somewhat of an institution in the UK that has been running 35 years. This article isn't about hollywood eating itself its about as intended. It's merely highlighting lazy, uninformed journalism.

I have a hard time trying to figure out why you're getting annoyed about Dredd, since it's just a second attempt at a comic book franchise that you don't care about. Did you blow a gasket over the 2004 Punisher movie?

The only American involvement is via the distributor Lionsgate. Every territory has it's own distributor, Lionsgate is America's otherwise no Amercan money or influece is involved in the making of the film

Dear lord. Dredd isn't a "remake" any more than Batman Begins or The Amazing Spiderman are. It's a new adaptation of a comic book that's been running for 30 years, which is sticking closer to the source material than the last adap, hence the differences in plot.

In fact, Total Recall isn't a remake either, it is similarly a new adaptation of a classic book which again seems to be sticking closer to the source than the Verhoeven movie did.

It's pretty shocking you wouldn't have taken the 5 minutes it would have taken to find this stuff out for yourself before writing an article about it.

As one of the rare few comic book characters that has sustained its audience's interest sufficiently to continue to be published in an unbroken run for over 35 years, it would be travesty if Judge Dredd did not get a second change at a movie adaptation.

If the first attempt had been any good (and the filmmakers had more respect for the source material) it might well have developed into a Batman or Spiderman type franchise by now.

“99% of everything done in the world, good or bad, is done to pay a mortgage. Perhaps the world would be a better place if everyone rented.”
Thank You for Smoking (2005) – Nick Naylor (Aaron Eckhart)

The movie producers, writers, and everyone working on them have to pay mortages, rent, car loans, etc. just like the rest of us. So they choose to remake movies because if it worked before it will probably work now.

All of this over a comic character Judge Dredd but, I am willing to bet that most people commenting could not tell you their senators, congressman, or what is really in the health care law. I think the overall sense of the article is about no orginal thinking anymore anywhere. It is obvious the author was not aware of the British comic Dredd. But it does not change the overall theme.

Unfortunately I DO know those individuals you reference: a real estate crook, a party hack and the protege of a lisping backbencher. That last will be updated soon to: the looniest rep. in Congress. As for the details of Affordable Health Care, well, it's rather complex to summarize, but it's intention is to ensure that more people are covered than are covered today, even though it falls short of the platinum standard single payer.

I know very little about Judge Dredd, if that makes you feel any better about your sweeping generalization.

Alot of us reacting to it arent american either, probably most of them are from the brittish islands.
Countries who had a working health care, a real democracy (more than two parties to vote for) and other delicate things for ages.

And well it does. It does change the overall theme, as someone asked if every James Bond movie also is a remake of the one before it. Dredd is an entirely other thing than the other remakes where it's the same movie with a new cast and crew.

You, lady, aren't just a lazy journalist, you're an incompetent one. Do you even watch films? Oh no, sorry, yes you watched Judge Dredd didn't you. And of course Dredd is a remake isn't it. Like Nolan's Batman is a remake of the 60s camp-fest.

Wow! Such venom over a movie/comic?!?! Why don't you put all that energy into something that matters, like, say.......anything besides attacking the young lady who wrote this piece. Most of you hateful freaks need to get a life!

...Which is why we have independent production companies. These are the guys coming up with the new ideas. Unfortunately, on average very few people go to see these films in comparison to the latest regurgitated Hollywood blockbusters. Hollywood just responds to what the cinema going public demands.

In other words, don't blame Hollywood, blame the fact that the majority of the cinema going public would rather see something they've seen 20 times before than make the effort to seek out something vaguely challenging.

Perhaps people are angry at this article targeting Dredd because it is made by an independent production company, and with this movie they are trying (and from what I hear succeeding) in doing something quite different from the usual comic book blockbusters you see on the big screen.

Now if you think that doesn't matter, then you must be forced to come to the conclusion that this entire article matters just as little.

As for people "attacking the young lady who wrote this piece", if you publish your writings, and this young lady evidently has ambitions to do so on a much larger scale, that is what you open yourself up to. It pays to get used to it.

And there really is no excuse for doing the most basic research in these times when the information is literally just a few mouse clicks away. C'mon people, I do more to check my facts than this writer even before simply posting on online chat forums, let alone writing full-blown "opinion pieces".

This 'young lady' took it upon herself to criticize this film for being a reboot; despite the fact that the most cursory of research would have revealed this not to be the case.

In doing so, she has made herself appear foolish, and has done the same to this publication. And you suggest that she should not be criticized because... why?

(I would also add, how very wonderful that you feel it perfectly okay for her to criticize a film on completely baseless grounds, but that others should not call her out on her behavior. A charming double standard.)

Well, for starters, double standards are just a mere part of my charm. The rest of my charm stems from the fact that I don't vehemently attack a very young journalist/acclaimed photographer for an error in an article. Is it really necessary to say such nasty, vile things to this young lady? Ever heard of, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"? Yeah, I doubt it. It boils down to one thing: you know what these people are saying is harsh. There is a nice way to say things and a not-so-nice way to say things. The way these people are coming across is just downright vile. It 'paints a broad brush' that all comic fans are nasty and vicious, ready to pounce if someone doesn't get their facts just right. Is the world going to stop spinning on its axis because she made a mistake? I think not. So there, asshat, does this answer your question?

Seriously Miss.Brown your little article became a very amusing blog and I actually learned about Judge Dredd,thanks to the comments ..Remake or not folks are still going to the movie theaters,renting and watching the movie..

Did anyone pick up the definition of democracy given by 13.2. I believe that makes this article no matter how irrelevant to news a nice display of people's priorities, and the reason this country is in trouble. I hope they do not believe that we live in a democracy, we never have and were never meant to. We live in a republic that uses a democratic system. Hence the electoral college, not popular vote rule. And healthcare does work, you actually have to do a little to get it, and if you were not allowed treatment for any obesity related illness, Obama care would work. And it would be fine now but lazy people, or should I say exercise challenged people are driving cost through the roof.